ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 29-10-2024 The writ petition was filed by a Member and the Secretary of the Governing Body; who is also the Member of the Legislative Assembly, against the dissolution of the Governing Body constituted under Statute 32; ‘Regarding Governing Body’, specifically clause (1). The learned Single Judge directed that the petitioner would be delegated to the appellate remedy, before the Chancellor, which remedy could be availed within two weeks. The petitioner on behalf of the Governing Body challenges the order on the ground that the dissolution is without jurisdiction and competence.

2. We have heard Mr. Akshansh Ankit, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ritesh Kumar for the University, Mr. Janardan Prasad Singh, the learned Senior Counsel for the Chancellor and the learned AAG-13 for the State.

3. Section 60 speaks of a Governing Body for the management and administration of each affiliated college other than a college owned and maintained by the State Government or a college established and administered by a minority community. The members of such Governing Body are also specified in clause (1) to (7). Statute 32 (1) deals with the constitution of Governing Body and provides for seven members; one the Principal of the college who is an ex officio member; one teacher, elected from and by the teachers of the College; one representative of the University nominated by the Syndicate; one Government Officer of the State Government not below the rank of the Sub-divisional Magistrate posted in the district, nominated by the Syndicate; one member elected from amongst themselves by Donors who have donated not less than Rs.25,000/- to the college; one member either of Parliament or the State Legislature residing in the district preferably of the locality where the college is situated nominated by the Syndicate; and one member co-opted by the Governing Body from amongst educationists or persons noted for their academic interest residing in the district where the college is situated.

4. The constitution as above has to be by election of two members, one from the teachers of the college and the other from the donors who have donated not less than Rs.25,000/- to the college, nomination by the Syndicate of one representative of the University, Government servant not below the rank of Sub-divisional Magistrate posted in the district and one member either of Parliament or the State Legislature residing in the district, preferably of the locality where the college is situated. The six members so constituted by election and nomination and by virtue of the post held of the Principal, would co-opt the seventh member from amongst educationists or persons noted for their academic interest residing in the district where the college is situated.

5. Admittedly, the constitution of the Governing Body was carried out, of the respondent college, in the manner provided under Statute 32. The question arising is as to whether the dissolution was proper.

6. The dissolution was carried out by Annexure-P/7 which is produced along with the writ petition by the Vice Chancellor. The contention raised is that Annexure-P/7 is without jurisdiction and without competence. It is also pointed out that the Vice Chancellor has acted on the directions of the Chancellor as is available at Annexure-R/D which is a document produced by the University and hence an appeal to the Chancellor would be futile, as directed by the learned Single Judge. It is also argued without prejudice to the aforesaid contention that there is no appeal provided against an order of dissolution which again can only be by the Syndicate, as is provided in clause (28) of Statute 32.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Chancellor as also the learned Counsel appearing for the University would contend that there is no specific direction in Annexure-D and it is only a forwarding of a complaint, received in the office of the Chancellor to take ne